Is it ok to come out as a Trump Republican in Biglaw? Forum

[soj]

.

[84651846190]

You should be concerned about even coming out as a Republican in the workplace. The strategy of the new "progressive left" is to label anyone with different views as racist, misogynist, homophobic, etc. Many of my liberal co-workers automatically assume someone is one (or all) or those things if they are a self-proclaimed conservative or Republican.

Avoid political talk in the office is the best advice.

It's not hard to understand why when you look at the "conservative agenda" and the politicians who supposedly stand for "conservative values."

Frankly, I know plenty of Republicans who aren't labeled those things. But yea, if you support or espouse ideals that come off as racist, misogynistic, homophobic, etc., there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.

It's pretty annoying how polarized this country has become.

That's why you just don't fucking bring up politics at work.

[Alive97]

The best part of this thread is that all of the explicit Trump supporters are anon LOL.

[Nebby]

The best part of this thread is that all of the explicit Trump supporters are anon LOL.

Yep. I demand the feckless mods out them but it appears they too are secret Trump supporters. Sad!

[lavarman84]

Getting butthurt over politics is a dumb person thing.

this should be shouted from the rooftops, but shitlibs have such missionary zeal for their political positions because they believe their "progressivism" makes up for their shitty, immoral lives

I love living a shitty, immoral life.

[jbagelboy]

I'm not disputing that he has raised some valid criticisms of the neo-conservative/traditional liberal political consensus. Maurras raised valid criticisms of the third republic. George Wallace raised some valid criticisms of the treatment of working class whites during desegregation. Franco raised some valid criticisms of the Zamora coalition. Pinochet raised some valid criticisms of the Allende government. Dollfuss.. well, no. The point is, almost every ethos that has captured the attention of the body politic has incorporated kernels of truth and legitimate criticisms of the prevailing constitutional order, but where they are entirely undergirded and driven by racial politics and demagoguery with little regard to policy principle--Trumpism exemplifies these qualities--the plausible "concerns" they raise are entirely subsumed and the platform becomes intellectually indefensible.

Again, there will be well educated, intelligent people in this country who will wind up voting for Trump or abstaining because they have so much disgust for Hillary and believe he can be "controlled" by the party structure and its grounding principles (basically sums up the Hindenburg bourgeoisie in 1933). But I have not read a single educated, well-conceived argument in favor of Trump that doesn't rely on some flavor of political racism or misogyny.

Why would it not be an "educated, well-conceived argument" to say that immigration and trade policies have shredded the working class, and Trump's policies would mitigate that damage while Hillary's would exacerbate it?

I mean, we might disagree because most law students are middle-class people who are not in danger of losing their livelihoods due to immigration and trade policies, but it's not like there's not a real argument.

You missed my point. There are reasonable policy justifications for particular stances or policies Trump has adopted at a variety of times during his campaign (often multiple opposing views on the same issue). That alone doesn't qualify as an educated justification of a pro-Trump position in its entirety. This isn't just a debate of semantics, although it might seem so at first blush. The fundamental political ideology that ties these disparate potential "well-conceived" policies together is a racial nativist populism, characterized by cultural revanchism and intense xenophobia: those are the values that inform the decision to support whatever agenda is Trump's flavor of the week. It's why he can't disavow white supremicists and race baiters, antisemites of all stripes, but he can switch on and off on other major political figures, companies, and hot button social issues, because of the centrality of race politics. When you actively support Trumpism you can't stop at the instrumental branch policy, you have to own the core political construct, which is entirely indefensible and has no intellectually honest explanation, as far as I have seen.

[kaysta]

The best part of this thread is that all of the explicit Trump supporters are anon LOL.

Yep. I demand the feckless mods out them but it appears they too are secret Trump supporters. Sad!

nah, now that they've had their fun with that they've returned to a neutrality worthy of Switzerland. I think alot of the pro Trump anons were mods

[Johann]

I'm not disputing that he has raised some valid criticisms of the neo-conservative/traditional liberal political consensus. Maurras raised valid criticisms of the third republic. George Wallace raised some valid criticisms of the treatment of working class whites during desegregation. Franco raised some valid criticisms of the Zamora coalition. Pinochet raised some valid criticisms of the Allende government. Dollfuss.. well, no. The point is, almost every ethos that has captured the attention of the body politic has incorporated kernels of truth and legitimate criticisms of the prevailing constitutional order, but where they are entirely undergirded and driven by racial politics and demagoguery with little regard to policy principle--Trumpism exemplifies these qualities--the plausible "concerns" they raise are entirely subsumed and the platform becomes intellectually indefensible.

Again, there will be well educated, intelligent people in this country who will wind up voting for Trump or abstaining because they have so much disgust for Hillary and believe he can be "controlled" by the party structure and its grounding principles (basically sums up the Hindenburg bourgeoisie in 1933). But I have not read a single educated, well-conceived argument in favor of Trump that doesn't rely on some flavor of political racism or misogyny.

Why would it not be an "educated, well-conceived argument" to say that immigration and trade policies have shredded the working class, and Trump's policies would mitigate that damage while Hillary's would exacerbate it?

I mean, we might disagree because most law students are middle-class people who are not in danger of losing their livelihoods due to immigration and trade policies, but it's not like there's not a real argument.

You missed my point. There are reasonable policy justifications for particular stances or policies Trump has adopted at a variety of times during his campaign (often multiple opposing views on the same issue). That alone doesn't qualify as an educated justification of a pro-Trump position in its entirety. This isn't just a debate of semantics, although it might seem so at first blush. The fundamental political ideology that ties these disparate potential "well-conceived" policies together is a racial nativist populism, characterized by cultural revanchism and intense xenophobia: those are the values that inform the decision to support whatever agenda is Trump's flavor of the week. It's why he can't disavow white supremicists and race baiters, antisemites of all stripes, but he can switch on and off on other major political figures, companies, and hot button social issues, because of the centrality of race politics. When you actively support Trumpism you can't stop at the instrumental branch policy, you have to own the core political construct, which is entirely indefensible and has no intellectually honest explanation, as far as I have seen.

You think I'd be dumb enough to even try and persuade a biglaw partner that supported Bernie with his money to vote for Trump if I didn't have an educated way of doing so? You think I'd actually succeed without an educated intellectual argument?

[stego]

Is Opie the same anon who made this thread?

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... +interview

[lavarman84]

You think I'd be dumb enough to even try and persuade a biglaw partner that supported Bernie with his money to vote for Trump if I didn't have an educated way of doing so? You think I'd actually succeed without an educated intellectual argument?

I think you could do it without making intelligent arguments for Trump.(i.e. you make intelligent arguments against Hillary)

[jbagelboy]

Okay Johann. Link me to a few good articles or books on trumpism and I'll actually read them. I've looked for something credible and haven't found anything worthwhile, besides the belated rationalization that he'll hopefully endorse traditional conservative fiscal policy and that one shouldn't take his problematic comments at face value (but even these endorsements are half-hearted and light on substance).

[Ohiobumpkin]

Whatever happened to the general rule of no politics, sex, or religion in the office?

[Johann]

Whatever happened to the general rule of no politics, sex, or religion in the office?

partners started hiring secretaries to suck their Ds in 1935.

[El Pollito]

no one talks about trump at work

[kaysta]

Whatever happened to the general rule of no politics, sex, or religion in the office?

partners started hiring secretaries junior associates to suck their Ds in 1935.

[Johann]

Whatever happened to the general rule of no politics, sex, or religion in the office?

partners started hiring secretaries junior associates to suck their Ds in 1935.

your timeline is all off. that was like 1998 at the earliest.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Is Opie the same anon who made this thread?

http://top-law-schools.com/forums/viewt ... +interview

no, apparently there's more than one.

nah, now that they've had their fun with that they've returned to a neutrality worthy of Switzerland. I think alot of the pro Trump anons were mods

SLANDER

or libel, I didn't pay much attention in torts

[Anonymous User]

I will say the jokes at Trump's (and his supporters') expense are pretty much a daily event at my (NYC biglaw) office currently. There are definitely a bunch of conservatives (partners and associates) here, though they are a minority, but even many of the known Republicans make fun of and appear to hate Donald Trump. It's pretty much the safest political topic to discuss because nearly everyone agrees. I would not be out as a Donald Trump supporter in NYC biglaw.

[84651846190]

Whatever happened to the general rule of no politics, sex, or religion in the office?

Seriously. The level and amount of social ineptitude cataloged in this thread is alarming.

[smaug]

i'll toxx for clinton for the lot of the trump supporters itt, if you take the other side

i'm pretty dumb so you should jump on this chance to shame me and get rid of me forever

goes for you too, tiago

[Leagles5161]

It's not like coming out as a Hilary supporter will get you places. Everyone just stfu in the workplace. No one cares about your political beliefs anyway

[Tiago Splitter]

i'll toxx for clinton for the lot of the trump supporters itt, if you take the other side

i'm pretty dumb so you should jump on this chance to shame me and get rid of me forever

goes for you too, tiago

googling suggests toxx is like a career match? Or I guess maybe it can be unilateral?

Anyways I got nothing. Authoritarian statists don't do it for me.

[sublime]

..

[Ohiobumpkin]

It's not like coming out as a Hilary supporter will get you places. Everyone just stfu in the workplace. No one cares about your political beliefs anyway

+1

[El Pollito]

i'll toxx for clinton for the lot of the trump supporters itt, if you take the other side

i'm pretty dumb so you should jump on this chance to shame me and get rid of me forever

goes for you too, tiago

i already tried this and no one took me up on it